More than 50% of Americans support Gay Marriage

Right back at you, buddy. You admitted yourself that you could care less for what I'm trying to say. Is that how ANY human operates? If someone says something wrong, you try to understand what they are trying to say and you ask them if this is what you mean. You don't prolong an argument over nothing. You are a massive troll and should be banned. You knew damn straight that there was a possibility (am I saying that right now????) that I was trying to say there may be a possibility. Especially since I was jumping between the two and you saw that. Instead of asking nicely which one I was trying to say, because I may not know the difference, you attack me and say, "NO THIS ISN'T WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AT ALL."

If you want me to respect your words, as I have before plenty of times, especially when you were one of the people that woke me up from my religion filled brain, then you need to respect my words. You spit on my words first. Your tone through this whole debate was antagonistic, do you disagree? That isn't how I start debating anything with anybody.

When I realized that you were making such a fuss over "may be" and "is", I was hysterical. No one does that to a person. It is trolling to the highest degree. I recognized the mistake and that I was wrong, but you obviously knew I was wrong or you wouldn't have started to debate in the first place. These walls of text are debating nothing when we were on the same page all the fucking long. You could have explained that there is a difference because we don't know if there is a possibility in the very very beginning and it would have been done. I find it hard to believe that you truly didn't realize that there was a possibility I was trying to say "may be".

I am not an English major. I dropped out of high school for christ's sake. I don't have any experience in science fields like a lot of you guys have. I just got awakened from thinking all sorts of wack intelligent design crap just a year ago. You would think you'd be considerate enough to at least acknowledge the possibility.

While I feel I owe SciForums a lot for a great deal of knowledge, even you yourself has given me, I am not going to bend over and get butt fucked by your trolling around over a few words. It's ridiculous.

You say I'm childish when you are the one debating someone over a few words. As I've said, I recognize my mistake, but it was a few words I missed, and I'm sure you realize it could be missing those. Regular people aren't as knowledgeable as you in these things. It was an honest mistake, and I don't see how many people would realize the significance of "is" and "may be" without having explicit teaching on this matter. School, or at least my school, just doesn't teach you this kind of precise language.

To be honest, I still don't even see why it's such a big deal. All I was saying is to recognize that there is a possibility.... I don't see how this sentence in itself says that there it is possible. I was saying that there is a possibility, not that it IS possible. 100%. I was just trying to say that it could be possible.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To me, it's a very minute difference. I thought the word possibility in itself says that it may be possible or it may not be possible? Am I wrong?

Nevertheless, I just don't see why you are antagonizing me over this. It's crazy.

You aren't a mind-reader, but you can see the possibility in what I was trying to say. You just had to ask. :shrug: It's called giving someone the benefit of the doubt. You didn't have to attack me and chase me for thousands of words over this mistake....

You say, "my little tantrum" when you have your own tantrum going on. It goes both ways. There is nothing to benefit by attacking me further. It could be said that you've been having your tantrum ever since you started butting heads with me in your antagonistic manner. I truly don't understand it.

"Things didn't go my way"? What way exactly was that? I wasn't trying to "have my way." What way? It turns out we were on the same page all along, and it was a simple misunderstanding. What I am complaining about is that it seems to me that the misunderstanding would have been recognizable to you, since you are the one more knowledgeable than me. It didn't have to take three thousand words. It was totally avoidable.

The purpose of a community can be to brainstorm. For instance, a year ago when I decided to defend my beliefs on here, a lot of forumers came to debate the issue and the "proof" I was throwing out there. 1 person may not have done anything for me. It took a village. So I am replying to these people on Youtube trying to help them if they want to be helped, because I was given a chance, I was helped. I feel it is my duty to try and help others. Now all I have is a year experience in debating others in this field and learning all the errors in the Bible. You guys are much more knowledgeable about science and everything, because you're much older than me, and sometimes different people can clarify and issue more than I could ever. I don't copy and paste directly to Youtube. (the character limit wouldn't let me anyway) I put the arguments in my own words, and I add my own arguments. For instance on the tower of Babel, I had already told the guy about the argument, "Why did God allow us to by skyscrapers so high that it wouldn't even be possible to get to with ancient tools. Not to mention we have landed on the moon and sent probes to every planet in our solar system. Why hasn't God done anything if he is so worried about us reaching the heavens?" So I didn't need that argument. Why don't I make it clear that it is a quote from another guy? Because I've done that before and got 0 replies. I don't think anyone cares about helping people help other people on this forum, as you yourself say. They only care when that wacko religious person is speaking with them directly. The less they know the better results I get, and this is a tested theory I have.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Garbonzo;
My two bits:

JDawg can be very abrasive- as I can be as well. As posting style goes, he and I can be very similar- and I hate his posting style. LOL

It may help to know that at least one other reader here could, while not reading your mind, see the gears turning. You have a few misconceptions, but one who was religious and started learning how to let go must be allowed that.

Every one of us is not static- we are in motion. Learning is motion. You're walking the path of your life and while you may have ideas, politics, religious or agnostic or atheist beliefs or lack of, this is where you stand NOW.

And that 'now' just passed.

Not only is it possible that as you walk, that may change; rather with most people it's inevitable that in five years- it will be a different person. A different poster.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, I am going to finish where I started and respond to anything I didn't respond to. I was really frustrated when I found out we've been on the same page all along and arguing over a few words, so I had to respond then and there. But I had to urgently go to bed, so I couldn't respond to your whole post. I meant to read it at a later point, but I didn't say so in my response because I was tired and upset. Sorry again, for the misunderstanding. I don't leave much of anything unfinished.

But I said "may be" that time? So I recognize that there may be a possibility.

Now, the problem I have with that is that, you seem to be implying that YOU DO KNOW, since you say:

There is no need to bring this up.

Whatever evidence we have is just human evidence. If such a thing as "outside our universe" IS POSSIBLE (because, yes, we don't know if it is possible) AND it exists, it would OUR evidence would not matter. Do you disagree? Now I have chosen my words carefully this time (hopefully), and recognize that it may not be possible. I've always knew this, I just didn't know you needed to explicitly say it.

Now, I thought the God question was always something science cannot answer. This is always the cliche I always here: "Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a God." The explaination was because such a thing is untestable, and even if "miracles" happen, and prophecies come true, it doesn't necessarily mean God, but a higher being. So this is why I thought it can never be knowable. Am I wrong?

Why even say there is reason to believe, though? Wouldn't it be better to just say we have no evidence of such? When you say "we have reason to believe it's not possible" it is like leaning to "no, it's not possible."

Say the existence of Big Foot. We have no evidence of such a creature. You don't say, "we have reason to believe it's not possible."

Yes it would be an afterlife. An afterlife is simply, "life after death."

Yes it has. Thank you. But I still feel you knew all along.

Well my original post, to clarify, was just saying that there may be a possibility for such a thing. If science can ever prove there isn't an afterlife (which I really don't see how it can, but apparently you think so), that would mean if your life is crap there would be no problem in killing yourself. Why live through the torture? Whereas I live on hope, hope for the future, and hope that if I die, there may be a possibility for an afterlife (again, this could even mean anything scientific, like cryogenics). I'm just saying that I don't know, no one knows, and I like it that way. The whole premise of my post was hope. Not anything supernatural or God, or anything religious. Just hope. Anything. Human Science, Alien Science, Un-Universal Science (whatever that is). Anything.

Intellect and philosophy are not antonyms. They can work hand in hand. You should know that. There is no doubt in my mind the gods of the various holy texts are human invention. That doesn't mean the idea of a god can be ruled out, anymore than the idea of evolution was ruled out before humans could identify the evidence.

So you are telling me you don't consider "what if" scenarios at all? You have missed out on a good multitude of movies, my friend. This isn't a scientific discussion. There is no need to "consider" any of this with any scientific merit. Did you forget we are in the philosophy section?

To our current knowledge, it is not possible to go back in time currently. Does that stop us from asking, "what if we had done this or that 10 years ago?" Of course not. It's a fun thing to consider, and we can still learn from questions that are not possible.

Alright, a misunderstanding. Nevertheless, what was the point again? We have clarified that we do not know if outside our universe is possible, but we do know that it could be possible, even though there is no current evidence for it and it might not be possible, but there is no evidence for that either. Absence of evidence does not lean one to say it's not possible. When there is absence of evidence one should take a neutral ground until it is disproven. Now, again, I don't see how this can be proven or disproven scientifically, but apparently you say science can do so. Please clarify this point.

What in your mind would be proof of a deity or evidence to support a deity? THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. I thought. How could any evidence say for sure, yes, there is a deity??? This is why I say such things are beyond science ever knowing, but you say no, so just explain why and I'll try to understand. Again, I'm not saying anything one way or the other. My whole goal here is to remain on neutral ground with the simple phrase, "I don't know." Your goal is to somehow explain things, correct?

Are you trying to say for sure 100% the teapot does not exist? You can't say such a thing before you disprove it. That would be like me saying there is no sock in your bedroom floor because I just cleaned it the day before. How am I supposed to know for sure that you didn't put the sock there after I left?

I agree. I recognize that there could be a possibility. It might not be possible, but it might be possible. It's neutral. I don't know.

Nobody says what? Do you want me to give you an example of someone saying that?

I mean that it may be possible that there is a universe outside of our universe. Then our math wouldn't matter.

I have no idea.

Again, I did not know this was possible. What would denote evidence for or against a deity for you, then?

Science is a method and a tool to describe the laws and functions of the physical universe. As a method, it measures by observation and records data. As a tool, it is used to find consistencies and similarities and thus arrive at logical conclusions. It is not a method or a tool designed to deal with the abstract spiritual being of God and is therefore, incapable of doing so. This does not make science an imperfect method or tool, because science does what it is supposed to do. It is a mis-use of science to try and define and prove something which is outside of its legitimate purpose. It won't ever prove or disprove God.

I don't even know what we were talking about.

Maybe a quote with the contradiction?

My bad then. I didn't realize you can comprehend timelessness. So if a god is timeless, what created the god?

So Zeus (Greek) and Indra (Hindu) are not Gods? Dyeus is not a God?

I speaking perfectly clear English.

Okay, tell me where I brought it up. I don't remember. If I did say a God, it was only an example, not that I believed any of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

Because if it were not disproven, there may be possible for the planet to be alive. It is a question plagued by man since we began to think. Is this planet alive? This is not your concept. You conceptualized the name.

As I've said, this is not the science section, it's the philosophy section. I should be able to ask a, "what if?" question without a frog going into my throat and saying there is no evidence for it.

Then we are making progress.

Yeah, anything may be possible. How's that?

Again, my example of the computer simulation which may be possible, if we are just code, consciousness can be copied. Again, I am not giving any weight to this. It's only an example. We don't know if it's possible, but it could be. Only a what if scenario. No evidence needed. I feel like I need to keep restating now whenever I say this because you will try to say "but we don't know if that's possible, or there is no evidence for that."

Can you clarify? I believe I got lost after "floating consciousness."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks, that means a lot.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ok I will throw sand here on me. I have nothing against the gays here, but I don't believe in them marrying.
Guess I'm under the 50%

 

You also said that "they are just as possible as ghost farts," which is an inaccurate statement because you don't know how possible either hypothetical phenomenon is.

Saying there's evidence for something is not the same as knowing something is true. I said specifically that evidence suggested that consciousness requires certain biological constructs, not that it definitively does.

This is a nonsense term you've invented that has no basis in reality. There is no such thing as "human evidence" as a contrast to some other form of evidence.

I wouldn't disagree, but the problem is that by dismissing the evidence as "human evidence", and therefore of no value, you are assuming not only that some other realm could possibly exist, but that it absolutely does exist. The proper intellectual stance would be to agree that the evidence suggests this, not to draw some arbitrary line in the sand based on some ether-realm you've concocted in your imagination.

If there does turn out to be something more to the universe, then we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. In the meantime, you have no reason to believe such a thing or place exists, and dismissing evidence based on the assumed possibility is stupid.

That's not the problem. The problem is that you've stated the direct opposite of that opinion. Remember? You said "you must believe in the possibility until there is evidence against it." (oddly enough, you don't seem to mind "human" evidence in that circumstance :shrug

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So it isn't a matter of you not being clear, it's that you contradict yourself.

Yes and maybe. "Yes" because we have enough evidence to show that the God of the Abrahamic faiths is a human construct, and in turn that all gods are human constructs, and "maybe" because we don't know if science will someday be able to show us the empty space where a creator or creators would need to be if the universe were created rather than the outcome of a natural process.

No it wouldn't be better to say that, because there is a difference between having no evidence for something, and having evidence against it. In the case of the afterlife--which is how this whole thing started--it isn't simply that we have no evidence of an afterlife, it's that we have evidence against its existence. So yes, saying "We have reason to believe it's not possible" is like leaning toward "No, it's not possible." And that would be the correct position to take when you have evidence against something. Why would you pretend that your position is neutral when you have evidence for or against something?

You're wrong here, because we do have reason to believe Bigfoot isn't possible. For one, where the fuck would he be? It's not like there's unexplored terrain here in the continental United States, and it's not like we're talking about a species of insect that's only discernible from its cousins by a particular behavior--we're talking about an 8-foot-tall humanoid furball supposedly living near well-populated areas of the country. If it really existed, we'd have more than one or two shaky videos. (the first of which, the one that started this whole mess, having already been admitted to be a hoax, of course.)

By that definition, then people who are resuscitated after heart failure spend their remaining days in "the afterlife." A temporary cessation of vital functions is only "death" in a clinical sense, not a practical sense. And even with all that aside, "the afterlife" has spiritual implications. If you meant otherwise, you should have said so before.

I didn't, because you didn't say so all along. Again, am I mind reader? Much as you don't want to admit it, there is a difference between "is" and "may be."

Again with "prove." How many times must this concept be explained to you before it sinks in?

The value of my life does not require the promise of a second life after my death. And how would the promise of that make this life more meaningful? Where's the logic in that? If I have only one life, that life is more precious than if I had two, or an endless amount of them. And either way, I treasure my life because of what's in my life, not what's beyond it. My family, my friends, my interests, my passions...to me, that's what life is, that's what makes life worth living.

There's so much wrong with this paragraph, I hardly no where to begin. Okay, let's start with you presuming to lecture me on philosophy and intellect. Obviously philosophy and intellect do not have to oppose each other, but I never said they did. I simply meant that atheism is not a value-based position, but rather an evidentiary one.

Secondly, I do not say that the concept of a created universe can be ruled out. In fact, I say the opposite. Do please try to follow along. I'm very tired of having to repeat and restate my positions just because you can't be bothered to read them properly the first time around.

In this conversation, you have disregarded scientific evidence based precisely on your "what if" scenarios, so don't try to change your story now. You've already made factual assertions, and don't pretend you haven't.

This has nothing to do with what we let ourselves imagine. My imagination works just fine. The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend scientific evidence is useless because in my mind I can imagine a scenario that would render it all pointless or false.

See above.

Again, you're off on a tangent and completely off-base.

1. Yes, in many cases absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
2. For the 90th time, proof only exists in math.
3. We do not know if something "may be" possible. Saying something may be possible is a neutral statement; it is not a statement of knowledge. You only "know" if something is or isn't possible.

Will I have to go through this again, or I can I trust that you're paying attention this time?

Well, my goal is to help you understand, but apparently that's a lost cause. The point of saying you'd ask for proof is not that there could possibly be proof, but that you would ask for something that doesn't exist. In other words, you don't want to believe that there isn't a god, so you'll dismiss any evidence against such a being out of hand. You've already said that you couldn't possibly survive without the possibility, so we both know you're simply unwilling to accept a reality in which it isn't.

So this whole exercise for you is for affirmation, not information. You don't care what I have to say, you only want to be able to dismiss it all out of hand.

As for what evidence for a creator looks like, I obviously can't say for sure, but perhaps some phenomenon that could not be explained away by other means. For example, if the world stopped turning suddenly, and there were no ill effects, and the sun turned blue and the face of some being appeared and spoke in a language everyone could understand. That would be evidence of, at the least, an intelligence able to suspend the laws of physics. Maybe that's not necessarily a creator or deity, but it's close enough that it makes no difference.

Yes I am saying that, and no, your analogy is a non-sequitur. I originally said that there was no time for the teapot to reach its destination, but it turns out that Russel's Teapot only revolves around the sun, so that's my mistake. I therefore could not say I "know" there's no teapot, because I know it's at least possible that we shot one out in that direction at some point.

However, just as an experiment, and to answer your question, supposing the teapot was purported to orbit the outermost star on the far side of the Andromeda Galaxy. I could not disprove that the teapot orbited that star (making the assumption that "teapot" is a exclusively human phenomenon, and therefore of Earth) , but I could tell you that there is enough evidence to be completely sure that it did not exist.

That is perhaps the first honest thing you've said in this exchange.

Please, yes. I'd love to see an example of someone else saying what you just said.

Again, you're just demonstrating your ignorance of what math is. It's not a set of values, it is the study of values. That's probably a crude definition, but it's true enough. If this hypothetical "outside" exists, we'd measure it with math.

Then how are you using it as a metaphor?!?!? :wtf:

I answered the "for" part above. As for evidence against, I've already stated that the evidence against the gods of our ancestors could be construed as evidence against the very concept of godhood. If we know that every example of godhood is a human creation, then at least in my opinion that would be evidence that godhood itself is a human creation. In other words, the only reason we discuss the possibility of a deity is because of the writings and oral traditions from antiquity. If it's true that those writings and oral traditions are simply mythology, then what's to say that the very concept of a deity isn't mythological as well?

Put it in terms of Care Bears. We know that Wish Bear and Grumpy Bear are inventions of human imagination, but we can't actually disprove the Care Bear as a species...but the fact that we know that every single example of a Care Bear is fictional means that we can say safely that the concept of Care Bears is fictional. Do you follow that?

Aside from that, I would assume that evidence against a deity would have to be something like a discovery in physics that mandates that the universe is a natural process. Or something.

Again, proof doesn't exist outside of math. Secondly, science already has found evidence against God. Yahweh can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be false through the scientific method. Perhaps it will someday be able to say for certain whether or not there is some abstract realm where a god may exist, but until it does, and until we know the makeup of such a place, it's not fair to say that science "can't" do that. For all you know, it might. For all you know, a god might exist in a physical place. The Mormons, for example, say God is a physical person living on another planet. There's nothing that says a god must be ethereal or abstract. That's just one conception of it.

Yes you do.

Okay, but this is the last time I'm doing this. I will quote you the entire exchange.

Now that I went to this trouble, will you admit that you contradicted yourself, or are you going to keep playing this immature game?

No one. A timeless god requires no creator.

Nope. They're gods. You keep using capital "G" despite the fact that I've corrected you on that usage three or four times now.

Maybe, but you certainly don't type it.

And?

It may be a question that plagued early man (as opposed to being plagued by man...:bugeye

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, but certainly no one believes the earth is "alive" in any real sense. The earth is not a sentient being.

And way to miss the point.

You make scientific claims and then complain when your claims are refuted? Grow up.

Better, but you're still fundamentally mistaken. You think that this idea means that scientific evidence is worthless and meaningless, so essentially it's no better than saying anything is possible.

But you posited it as a reason why scientific evidence is invalid, so your hands aren't clean.

I said that the evidence suggests that consciousness is a byproduct of biological activity. In other words, it doesn't happen without the brain. Your response was "So science can't replicate my mind?" This is a non-sequitur, because I did not imply that science could not someday "download" you onto software that operates on hardware much in the same way that your mind currently operates in your brain. It would still be a brain-like construct, if it's possible. For your consciousness to carry on to an afterlife it would need to "float" away from your decaying brain and exist entirely independently, and there's evidence to suggest that this isn't possible.

But now that you contend "afterlife" can mean your persona being downloaded into a computer, then what I said doesn't really have any relevance.

 

That was long.

And what the HELL does it have to do with the topic?

 

Did you have something to add, or are we just trolling?

 

Yes, we are trolling. Shall we stop doing so?

 

I'm not trolling, I'm having a conversation with garbonzo. You seem to be on the outside complaining about it. Perhaps you should find something else to do.

 

Very well, I'll throw in a quick thought and move on to other things.

Your "conversation" is way of topic.

It's frustrating: Way too many topics and way too many threads seem to always get diverted to 'atheism vs. theism/deism.' It doesn't even seem to follow just evolution or politics or biology or whatever: they pop up wherever, constantly. I must be participating in at least three, myself, in the religion forum and none of them are on topic.
In some cases, it's characters like Wynn or Lightgigantic simply trolling. And it gets fed into.
But some of the atheists act no better. Maybe I'm just as guilty. But it doesn't mean I can turn a blind eye to it.
It gets to where it's the same argument in thread after thread.

And that won't change at all unless some folks simply say, "This topic is about_______."

At your request- I'm off of this tangent and mild rant now.

 

So go away. I don't know what else to tell you. If you don't like the conversation, avoid it. If you want to keep talking about the 50% of Americans who supposedly support gay marriage, then talk about it. But if you're just going to troll this thread and bitch about how people are getting off-topic, you're worse than anyone you're complaining about.

Get over it and find a new hobby.

 

Alright. It seems we are getting closer. I love this.

Just as possible meaning both may be possible. I'm giving them equal weight, as you say.

I believe I should answer this when you clarified your position better below.

Again, there is no basis in reality for any of this. An example would be my hypothetical computer simulation scenario. What we do within this hypothetical simulation would only be evidence for us, not outside our universe.

I am assuming this on the basis that it could be possible. I'm not saying it does one way or another. The evidence suggests this in any practical sense, I agree. But if this WERE possible, I have a right to dismiss the evidence. Because we don't know if it's possible or not, I can have my hypothetical scenario.

I believe I've explain my position above, but let me try and create an illustration to the best of my ability.

Say...you're on a crazy japanese game show...

There are 2 Rounds. The 2nd round only exists for the purpose of the illustration so I don't have to explain it. The first round consists of you shooting shooting basketball hoops. Each basketball you get into the hoop, you get an extra turbo boost for your airplane. You have to throw a styrofoam airplane farther than, say, 100 yards. So you get your 30 seconds and at the end of the 30 seconds you only got one basketball in. This is measly. Now we don't even know if it's possible to get to 100 yards with only his arm strength and 1 turbo boost. There is evidence to suggest that it's not, because the combined strength just wouldn't be enough, but it's not impossible. It's not ruled out yet. So shouldn't this guy plan for Round 2 during intermission in case he does make it?

Just because evidence suggests against something doesn't mean you can't consider it. I'm not "dismissing" the evidence anymore than that contestant dismisses the evidence that says he most likely won't make it. He still tries for it because it still pay me possible. I still consider this because it still pay be possible. Consider means nothing else but recognition. It doesn't mean I add weight to it. I just recognize it could be possible.

I've retracted and clarified that comment. Remember?

Like I said, just because it is a human construct doesn't mean you can dismiss it. I'll explain with your Care Bare analogy later.

How can science someday show us the empty space where a creator or creators would need to be? Please explain this or cite your source. I don't believe scientists would say this. If they do, then hey, I guess I'll retract, but I don't see them saying this. I don't believe everything in the universe can or will ever be explained.

Well, take my hypothetical computer simulation. If it is possible and if it is true, then our evidence would mean shit if the universe is just code or something. Our evidence can be manipulated in this scenario. You would say you can't give any weight to this because there is no evidence for it, but I say you can still recognize it without there being evidence for it. Just like you could recognize it may be possible that we are in ghost farts. All this is, is an example to better comprehend what outside of the universe could mean.

My analogy would work just the same for a species of insect that's only discernible from its cousins by a particular behavior.

Yes, it would be an afterlife. A form of an afterlife.

I did admit the difference. "Remember?"

Proof only exists within math? lol I don't even get this. Does math tell you an afterlife is not possible? I thought we already agreed that we don't know? You say evidence suggests against it, but to me that is irrelevant, because no matter how much evidence suggests against something, it's not saying it's impossible. My whole position is that it may be possible. So? :shrug:

It makes it more meaningful because it is something to look forward to in life when you have nothing else.

What if you have none of those? If you knew there was nothing to look forward to, you might as well kill yourself.

What does atheism have to do with any of this? :shrug:

So you are saying it can be ruled in? :bugeye:

Then what were my factual assertions? My stance has always been, "I don't know."

Scientific evidence for things that science wasn't meant to explain is useless to me because it can't explain it. If you think it can, then show how it could possibly do that.

1. Not in this case. Like I said, just because there is no evidence for the creature from the black lagoon, doesn't mean it's not possible 100%.
2. Yeah?

WTF? You just told me to say "may be" instead of "is" and now you are saying we don't know if something may be possible? It's like you keep pushing the yardstick back. Besides, I didn't say "may be," I said "could." It could be possible but it might not be possible.

I don't remember saying that about a god.

I don't believe you have anything to say. You haven't shown that besides educating me on what the difference is between "is" and "may be".

So you yourself admit that even that does not necessarily prove a creator or deity. Exactly my point.

I have no idea what you are talking about. =P

This article mirrors my sentiments exactly: http://www.mibba.com/Articles/Nature/2813/Past-the-Universe/

What if we never get to know what this hypothetical "outside" is in this universe?

I don't know where we began or where we are going.

Care Bears does not answer any questions about the universe.

Yeah, see?? You don't even know. That's because there can't be any evidence that disproves all definitions of a God. (Continued below.)

Logical fallacies can already disprove some definitions. Science may be able to disprove some. But not all.

a god might exist in a physical place. But we are talking about disproving a god, not proving one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I didn't contradict myself. Read the last 2 words of what you yourself put in bold. If anything, I could be accused of speaking for everyone. My mistake; I thought nobody can comprehend timelessness.

So where did he come from?

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

That's a capital "G", right?

As long as you can understand it.

There is a God in other monotheistic religions non-Abrahamic

Yes, early man. Plants are alive, but not sentient. You don't have to be sentient to be alive.

How so?

Okay.

I never said an afterlife had to exist independently. In an afterlife you can have a brain.

Correct. So our discussion is over anyway?

 

Why?

 

I can live with that.

The point is that you can't dismiss empirical evidence just because it may be possible that we're all living in a computer simulation. And evidence has a track record. We're having this conversation because of scientific discovery based on empirical evidence. You drive a car, brush your teeth, and microwave your dinner based on similar evidences. But even if we stood at the dawn of time, and together we found the first piece of evidence in human history, the same logic would apply: unless there's some reason to believe that we're all living in a computer simulation (a conclusion that could only be reached through the gathering and examination of evidence, ironically), there's no reason to dismiss the evidence.

But you're not hypothetically dismissing the evidence. You're actually dismissing it. You give it no value because, as you say, "it's just human evidence."

As interesting and creative as this analogy is, it doesn't work. The contestant in the game show has nothing to lose and potentially much to gain by staying positive and eliminating doubt from his mind. This singular approach to a problem would work in a game show. However, in the real world, this singular approach would get in the way of real progress. If everyone dismissed evidence because we may all be living in a computer simulation, then we'd still live in caves.

But that's not only what you're doing. Do I need to go back and quote you again?

It wasn't just one comment. It was two or three full posts of it, and then another in which you flip-flopped. You said later that you were simply not being clear, I'm saying you changed your stance.

Yes it does.

So let me get this straight: You won't accept that there may be a possibility of someday science showing us definitively that there is or is not a god, but you do accept without evidence or equivocation that science cannot?

This is a double standard. You can't have it both ways, garb.

Anyway, I don't know how science would do it, I'm saying it's premature to rule it out.

But you can't dismiss the evidence now based on that imaginary scenario, which is what you're doing. I say that the evidence suggests there is no afterlife, you say that the evidence is meaningless because evidence could be manipulated by some outside agent. My position is valid, yours is not.

No it wouldn't. It would probably work better, because it's very probable that we have not discovered all species of insect. It does not work with Bigfoot, because there's literally no chance we've simply been overlooking a race of giant ape-men living in the continental US.

That's ridiculous. You can't have your own definitions. That's not an afterlife. That is life.

Yeah, but my point was that your contention that I knew what you meant all along is not true. If you really meant "may be" instead of "is" then no I did not know what you meant all along.

This is why I say you're punching above your weight. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. You can't "prove" something empirically. That's why it is said that proof only exists in math. You can only have evidence for something outside of that. So to say that evidence is irrelevant because it doesn't disprove something is false, because no evidence could prove or disprove anything. That doesn't mean evidence is therefore irrelevant.

Oh so you mean it makes your life meaningful, because you have nothing going for you in this life. I see. Well, at any rate, it still wouldn't give any meaning to your current life, it would only be the promise of another one to come. IF anything, it would make this life expendable.

For one, that's shitty logic. You don't know what's around the next corner, and it really is true that some of our best life experiences can come just after some our worst. "It's always darkest just before dawn," have you never heard that expression. Just because you don't see any future for yourself doesn't mean there isn't one.

Secondly, if you had nothing in this life, and death was what delivered you to the next life, then why would you put off death in this life? In other words, an afterlife would only make you want to expedite death in this life. And this is evidenced in the more extreme iterations of modern monotheistic faiths.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Are you like the guy from Memento who has no short-term memory?

No, I'm saying it can't be ruled out.

Again, no it hasn't. You've also said that science cannot answer the god question, and that evidence is irrelevant. Those are factual claims.

But it's your assertion that there is some realm that science cannot explain, and you haven't demonstrated that such a place exists. There's no reason to believe that such a place exists. No, you can't disprove it, but that doesn't therefore mean that evidence against such a phenomenon is irrelevant.

There's also evidence against the creature from the black lagoon, such as its total absence, which as we've already established, is evidence of absence.

Again, I keep making the assumption that you can follow along. This is beyond you, and I need to realize that. You don't get this, and trying to make you understand is apparently impossible.

Get an education, then come back and we'll talk.

You said it about the afterlife, if I'm not mistaken.

I've done much more than that. If that's all you've gleaned, then that's your failing, not mine.

Where's the facepalm smiley?

Not surprising in the least.

Nowhere in the article does the (rather ignorant to cosmology) author say "I'm past the universe in thinking." So no, it's not a figure of speech.

There might not be one.

That's not what you said earlier. You claim to know the boundaries of science, to know that there are realms beyond its reach, etc.. You claim to know quite a bit.

Again, I assumed too much about your comprehension level. I won't make that mistake again, I apologize. The point of the Care Bear analogy was to demonstrate how the very concept of godhood may in fact be nothing more than an invention of the human imagination. If you can't understand that, I can't help you.

You didn't ask me for proof, you asked me what the evidence would look like. I told you. You don't get to then say "See! There's no proof!" That's like asking me what 2+2 is and then complaining that I didn't tell you what 3+3 is.

Doesn't disprove anything. For the 91st time.

No we're not. We're talking about finding evidence for or against one.

He didn't "come from" anywhere. He always was.

Name one.

But the earth isn't.

I'm not doing this again. I've already shown you multiple times. Pay attention.

Okay, in your warped, personal, and incorrect definition of "afterlife," yes. Going by your logic, there's no question that it exists. It absolutely does, because you choose to define those who have had cardiac arrest and survived as living in "the afterlife."

Oh, our discussion is over, but not for that reason.

 

It was pointed out in another thread I did not write anything further.
So I will add, so it is clear I have nothing against gays my cousin is gay. An even though I may or may not fully support marriage between gays. It is not my decision weather states allow it. Also visit thread.
Should gay marriage be voted on by states or made a federal law ( 1 2 3 4 5)
By Buddha12.

 

Well garbo its obvious ur a religious nut.. yet its YOU who doesnt know religious history. Or yu would know that. From 3-700 ad aprox there were same sex marriages i believe the vatican actually hosted 17 i believe it was.. then all tge suddon religiou nuts deny it. U also fail to recognize marriage has been in the animal kingdom wayyy longer than when religon has been around. 3rdly why the fuck do u care i2 men or 2 woman get married?


In your holy book whats fround upon more
same sex marriage
Heterosexual marriage where the man beats the shit out of his wife
Heterosexual marriage with infinidelity

 

And garbo why is it exactly that you dont want gays to get married? Go further than the bible saya so

 

Huh????

 

The Bible condemns homosexuality. Simple as that. How could you be religious and support (not just accept) same sex marriage? lol

I'm an atheist, so this is exciting news for me.